Any honest analysis of the Hamiltonian tariff and "internal improvements" system, which was implemented throughout the 1820's and early 1830's and returned briefly in the mid 1840's, indicates it was a dismal failure with basically two results: lining the pockets of fat cat recipient industries and making their production techniques lazy and inefficient. The American iron industry in 1830 was 50 years behind Britain in technology and was actually reverting to production techniques used in the 1780's rahter than modernizing. Similar things happened in woolens, textiles and most other major manufacturing industries.
Fortunately for the Union and unfortunately for the Slaver Insurrectionists and their defense team, Hamilton's program laid the basis for the development of a strong capitalistic economy in the North which allowed the creation of and arming an army capable of defeating the insane designs of the Slavers.
This is the reason Hamilton is so despised by the DSs. Had his program been a failure and weakened the North you couldn't have been happier.
Of course, it is typical misleading nonsense from you to compare an infant industry with a small market to British operations able to produce for a world market such as the Empire. Economies of scale produce the profits capable of drawing forth investment from the largest banks in the world at that time, the British and even the larger European ones. Comparing apples and oranges is pointless.
Another example, I suppose, of American businessmen going for the near money rather than undertaking the risk and expense of modernization. But that's interesting that they did the same thing in the 19th century that they later did in the 1980's when voluntary import restrictions on foreign automobiles were promulgated. The Japanese manufacturers promptly began to load out every vehicle shipped with the maximum possible burden of invoiceable options, effectively raising prices, and American car manufacturers equally promptly, led by Roger Smith and General Motors, raised prices -- notwithstanding that they hadn't added a dollar's worth of value to their manufactures. Smith led GM from 51% market share to about 30% during his tenure as chairman of the board and CEO.
Similar measures get similar results?